Central Contractors Corporation

Review: We signed the contract with [redacted], aka [redacted], Central Contractor company. At first he talked very nice and friendly, but turn out he is a HORRIBLE contractor. We signed contract with him since July 2011, but until Jan 2013 my house is still not finished.

Finally, we have to ask our lawyer to terminate him.

[redacted] always asks money in advance, even though we don't want to give him, he would says he needs the money to order material as soon as possible, but after we give him the money, he disappear for a long time.

Whenever we call and text message to ask him why he doesn't work at our house, he would give us many reasons. He took our money and didn't do his work. What a HORRIBLE contractor.

For example: I paid him 10,500 dollars for 2 stairs including ballusters and hand railings, but he just give me 1 stair without ballusters and hand railings. When I call to Century Stair company, the company made my stair, they said [redacted] still owe $2350 for that one stair. I am so angry with him.

The original contract is just about 240,000 dollars, but until Jan 2013, I've already paid him 286,000 dollars. However, my house was just about 75% finished.Desired Settlement: I want my money back for what he took from me but didn't do his job.

Review: [redacted] is our contractor for a 2 level addition with unfinished basement. He does not show up to do the work or only shows up for a few hours at a time after hours. He has promised that he will get our project moving and that materials are on the way but fails to follow through or perform on our contract.Desired Settlement: We have paid [redacted] for several draws where work has not been performed and materials have not arrived. We would like a refund of these deposits and replacement of our contractor so we can move on with our project.

Review: Letter of COMPLAINT regarding

[redacted], License Number [redacted]

Class A Licensed Contractor (“Contractor”)

Of Central Contractors Corp. (CCC)

1. [redacted] and [redacted] (“Customer”) paid Contractor $94,209 and Contractor only completed an estimated $37,000 worth of labor and materials before abandoning the project (please see attached estimates of work completed to date). The total contract value was $138,500 (not including change orders). Contractor began work on 17 August 2012, initiated framing in mid-October 2012, but halted work on 20 November 2012, and left the addition partially framed, exposed to the elements, without sufficient weather protection and inadequately supported. After 3 months of absence by the contractor (not being on-site) the Customer had no other recourse but to terminate the Contractor for breach of contract and hire a second contractor to finish closing-in and securing the addition.

2. A structural engineer certified that Contractor left the structure in an unsafe and unstable condition. This condition existed for months while the family occupied the residence and which no work was performed, leaving the Customer and their five children at risk. The engineer insisted that the condition must be remedied immediately, and Customer had to rectify the condition at their own additional expense.

3. In early November, after Customer already paid a total of $74,209, Contractor requested an advance payment of an additional $20,000, purportedly for the purchase of windows, and threatening that failure to pay such advance would result in the project being delayed. The contract had no provision for such payment, and Customer has since learned that the cost to Contractor of the windows in question would have been no more than $6,000. The Customer paid the requested advance of $20,000 on November 2nd, 2012 (check no. 1863). This payment was made in good faith, and constituted half of the agreed-upon next scheduled payment of $40,000.00, which per the contract was not due from Customer until completion of roof shingles. That next milestone, roof shingles, had yet to be started, and never was started by Central Contractors Corporation . Additionally, the windows were never delivered. The check was deposited 2 November, but Contractor never provided receipts, expected date of delivery for the windows, or explanation of where the windows or monies were, despite a request made by Customer in a certified return receipt letter. The name of the supposed window distributor, provided verbally to Customer on 28 December, 2012 as “[redacted],” has no record of the windows ever being ordered by Contractor.

4. On 3 September 2012, Contractor demanded and received an advance payment of $5,200.00 for a change order to extend the addition from 16’ to 18’, two feet beyond the County-approved drawings. Contractor began construction; including pouring the slab and rough-in framing, and worked for three months prior to abandoning the project. The contractor never informed the County of the changes, yet claimed after he halted work, that it was the Customer’s job to obtain updated permits from the County despite the fact that the permit was in the contractor’s name. It may go without saying that Contractor should not have begun construction until the updated permits were obtained by Contractor from the County.

5. The framing, which was initially described by Contractor to be a three-week job, was never completed. With the on-coming winter, Customer expressed concern in writing that the addition be closed-in as soon as possible, suggesting reasonable dates. However the Contractor did not provide dates or return to complete the framing. The Customer had to rely on his own resources to install a tarp to protect what was already constructed to prevent permanent damage to the framing, which included particle board sheathing, TJI joists, and plywood. These items are not designed to endure repeated exposure to rain and snow, and other contractors advised that leaving the structure in such a state is not standard practice, nor a good idea. Frankly, they were appalled that any professional would do so.

6. After the Contractor halted work, the Customer contacted the Structural engineer responsible for the design of the addition. The engineer visited the site in mid-January to assess the condition of the addition and determined that construction had not been done in an orderly or safe manner as dictated by industry norms and standards. For example, the attached ledger plate that supports the 1st story joist had only 14 of the necessary 44 through-bolts installed as specified in the permit drawings. Despite this serious deficiency, Contractor had proceeded to build the first floor and roof, which bear directly on this ledger board. Also, the roof ridge beam consisting of three 18’ 1 3/4”x 18’ LVLs was inadequately supported, and did not have sufficient bracing for the weight it was bearing. Despite these structural inadequacies, the contractor had proceeded to install the roof, even prior to completing the sheathing around the sides of the house. Upon seeing the condition it was left in, the structural engineer provided a report detailing the deficiencies, and recommended that they be addressed immediately for the safety of the family and the integrity of the structure. There is also a question of whether proper materials were used as specified in the drawings. This includes the sill plates installed on the concrete slab which may not be pressure treated, which is required by code.

7. Contract did not contain a scheduled time to complete, or even a range of time in which work would be complete. When asked in writing by the Customer to provide definitive dates the Contractor did not address the issue but stated “are (sic) full intent is to compleat (sic) this project in a timily(sic) manner under the terms of the contract we both agreed too(sic).” There are no terms in the contract which state an estimated time to completion. However, the contract did state that “Work is to be carried out in one continuous operation in a reasonable sequence of events and without interference.” This was not honored.

8. Contractor refused to return calls or respond to emails by the Customer beginning 15 December and insisted on certified mail for a period of 1 month as the only means of communication, intentionally delaying progress despite the condition he left it in.

9. Contractor removed equipment from the property on 28 December 2012, with the exception of 2 old wheelbarrows, scaffolding, a broom, and a sledge hammer.

10. Industry-standard safety precautions were not taken into consideration on site, to include marking off an area around an exposed (dug-out) main electrical feed to the house, and leaving 1 foot of water in an installed sump basin where Customer’s young children (2 year old and 4 year old) were potentially put at risk. Customer had to pump out the sump basin themselves.

11. The Contractor generated unnecessary work and insisted on payment upfront for this work. Details are as follows: The Contractor informed the Customer in September that a sump basin for the new basement bathroom needed to be installed claiming that the grade to the main waste sanitary line was too shallow. The Customer was clear that he did not want a sump basin and queried whether there were other solutions. Contractor insisted there was not. Customer paid the Contractor for this change order in advance ($1,500.00). However, it was determined months later, after the Contractor had abandoned the project, that the sump basin was NOT necessary, as determined by a licensed professional plumber, who was paid to remove it and connect to the main waste sanitary line. Furthermore the sump basin parts cost the original contractor approximately $63 in materials based on estimates from Home Depot. The pump itself, estimated at $750.00 was never installed or delivered on site.

12. At the suggestion of Customer’s Professional Engineer, who is responsible for the structural design, Customer obtained from Fairfax County (FFC) copies of the FFC Building Reviewer’s comments and requests for additional information and certifications. The additional certifications were required by FFC before approving the original building permit. One critical issue the County Reviewer identified was the need that the existing basement wall and foundation be certified by a professional engineer to be of “adequate size and condition to carry new and existing loads.” Contractor, however, secured the services of his own Professional Engineer who stated erroneously that “no additional roof loads are supported on the wall.” This documentation, which is in direct conflict with the permitted plans, was never presented to the Customer. After the Contractor halted work, it was determined that this wall was indeed insufficient and modifications and rework were needed to ensure its integrity, all at significant additional cost to the Customer.

13. Contractor did not put up any silt fence on site, although it is stated in the residential inspection certification that he did so. According to the Contractor’s engineer who certified the statement, the engineer saw the silt fence in the contractor’s pick-up truck when he inspected the footings and slab, and was told that it would be installed. The Contractor never did install it, despite the fact that it is required by the County. The silt fence was put up by the Customer at the Customer’s expense after the Contractor abandoned the project.Desired Settlement: [redacted] did not honor the contract and owes us approximately $60,000.00 for monies paid in advance, and work never completed.